1 Wednesday, 20 January 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.22 p.m.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, to everybody. Madam Registrar,
6 would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case IT-03-69-T, the
9 Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar. A special afternoon to
11 you, Mr. Stanisic, we are pleased to see that you are in the courtroom
12 and that you will directly follow the proceedings now instead of through
13 a video conference link.
14 I was informed that you, Mr. Stanisic, would like to address the
15 Chamber briefly on health matters, and I was also informed that the
16 Simatovic Defence wanted to address the court in relation to the upcoming
17 witness. Yes.
18 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
20 MR. JORDASH: We indicated we would also like to address Your
21 Honours concerning the next witness.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. We've seen some correspondence in relation to
23 that and will later see what is appropriate to be dealt with prior to the
24 witness coming into court, and what would be appropriate to hear when the
25 witness is giving his testimony. But let's first then -- it's on the
2 Mr. Stanisic, the Chamber, and this is now put on the record, has
3 received a letter. The Chamber has sought through your counsel whether
4 the content of the letter could be shared with other persons relevant for
5 this matter. We received an answer to that. Whether this is an
6 appropriate way of communicating with the Chamber is still a matter in
7 which the Chamber has not finally made up its mind. But if you want to
8 address us on health matters you may do so, but there's no need to repeat
9 what is already in your letter, and I can tell you that the Chamber is
10 giving some follow-up to that letter at this moment. So, therefore, even
11 though we might not here be convinced that this is appropriate way of
12 communicating with the Chamber, we certainly did not ignore what you
13 wrote to us.
14 If there's anything in addition to what you've written that you
15 would like to bring to our attention, you have an opportunity to do so
17 THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours,
18 for giving me this opportunity to give you some additional explanations
19 concerning my letter. [No interpretation]
20 JUDGE ORIE: I do not receive English translation on channel 4.
21 THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] Is it -- can you hear me,
22 Your Honour? I'm on -- the mike is on.
23 JUDGE ORIE: I can now hear you.
24 THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] Okay. Sorry.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please restart, Mr. Stanisic.
1 THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours,
2 distinguished judges, I believe that you understand the reasons why I
3 have addressed you in writing in connection with my treatment problems
4 and, one could say, inadvertent but definitely negligent treatment which
5 has led to acute thrombosis in my leg.
6 You have, in my view, not been sufficiently informed of what has
7 been happening to me. That is why I have sought your protection and your
8 understanding, your appreciation of the state that I'm in. The -- there
9 exists voluminous documentation of the military medical academy which is
10 an elite institution in Serbia
11 as that of the Bronovo hospital and the Leiden University Clinic, they
12 all show that this is the third time that I'm encountering serious
13 problems with acute thrombosis of both legs. The doctors treating me
14 here were aware of the fact that there existed the realistic danger of
15 serious complications of this kind ensuing and that they have been and
16 they are monitoring patients who have had serious forms of pouchitis or
17 ulcerous colitis, and they were aware that because of the [indiscernible]
18 of an organ in my abdomen, my colon, in a series of three of the most
19 serious abdominal surgery operations, my organism has been producing
20 complications in the kidneys for years, so that surgery had to be done in
21 that respect several times too.
22 They were aware that because of my protracted treatment with
23 antibiotics, corticosteroids, and cytostatics I also contracted
24 osteoporosis which is seriously endangering my spine. The problem with
25 my spine has initially prevented me from attending the court sessions.
1 In my letter, I have explained in detail everything that I had gone
2 through in my cell during that period, living a life not dain [phoen] of
3 man, because it was with great pain that I could at all reach the toilet,
4 let alone do anything else. They knew that I had been treated for
5 depression for several years back and that in the meantime, I was
6 additionally encumbered by personal problems, all this led to a state in
7 which I could not nor had the will to leave the floor on which my cell is
8 in order to go out for some fresh air.
9 They could not see that my life had become relatively unbearable.
10 Although a number of physicians have been monitoring the state of my
11 health, two of whom are specialist physicians whom you have appointed and
12 who also visited me in Belgrade
13 here at Scheveningen as well as well as Bronovo hospital specialists and
14 those from Utrecht
15 eight months gave instructions for the anticoagulation therapy condition
16 to be checked. Because of their utmost negligence in that respect, I
17 again have acute thrombosis, the etiology of which is unknown or is that
18 but the damages are known.
19 Even worse, I was returned from hospital to my cell and lived
20 there for two weeks without any kind of medical supervision at all,
21 simply they just administered a double dose of anticoagulation therapy to
22 me. That's all. Nobody took a blood test to see how very fine my blood
23 was in order to prevent any other serious complications from happening.
24 Believe me it was a very difficult time for me. There was just this one
25 nurse there who upon my insistence drew some blood for testing that is
1 after a couple of days and at my insistence, and I don't know what the
2 results of the tests are.
3 Judges, there is something else I wish to impress upon you today.
4 I had no doubt that you would take my letter into serious consideration,
5 but what am I talking about right now? You are certainly not aware of
6 the fact that endeavouring to inform you at any cost that my health
7 condition has improved, in that endeavour, because of that, it is for
8 nine months now that I have been for nine months now without a single --
9 the exception of a single day, I've been -- I'm being administered
10 antibiotics, so which one? Mitrodyosol [phoen] is very hard on the
11 organism. That is of course administered so as to counter my principal
12 condition. Even a layman knows that even when the infections are of the
13 most serious kind, one does not take antibiotics for a period of over six
15 Also, without consulting my doctors who have been treating me for
16 over ten years, corticosteroid therapy was introduced and is being
17 administered to me although I received a treatment unsuccessfully for two
18 and a half years in Belgrade
19 which I had to recover for several years; namely, my physicians in
21 Nevertheless, I accepted the recommendation of Dr. Cazemier from
22 the Bronovo hospital in order to be given a new biological medication,
23 not wishing to obstruct the treatment or to create any doubt in my good
24 intention to leave this courtroom, although he himself told me that there
25 was no proof that this medication is efficient. I wonder, Your Honours,
1 whether anyone can tell me what are the consequences that such treatment
2 can produce? This treatment further involves in addition to all these,
3 also strong anti-depressants, tranquillisers, analgesics, painkillers on
4 a daily basis against the pain that I feel in the pouch and my kidneys
5 and the spine. All this while it is in the realm of medical ethics and
6 the medical profession can be considered and reviewed in a medical way,
7 but, your delegated doctor Mr. Oldenburg [phoen] has warned recently that
8 it is dangerous to take antibiotics for so many months and that further
9 administration of antibiotics to me is impermissible. I'm not sure
10 whether you have gotten this report.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stanisic, I'm going to stop you here. You are
12 entering into quite some details as far as your medical treatment is
13 concerned. This Chamber is not blind nor deaf for what you wrote us, to
14 some extent it's repetitious what you told us. Your counsel know exactly
15 where to go primarily if there are concerns about the way in which you
16 are treated because the medical care for persons detained in the United
17 Nations Detention Unit is not primarily within the scope of
18 responsibility of this Chamber.
19 If it has an impact on the proceedings, then of course the
20 Chamber will form its opinion about it. So, therefore, as I said before,
21 we are giving some follow-up dealing with some of the matters. You are
22 explaining to us because we cannot exclude that it may have an impact on
23 these proceedings, but to further listen to all the complaints you have
24 about the way which you are treated, giving us all kind of facts which of
25 course we can't verify. Giving us opinions as to what should have been
1 better done, that is not for the Chamber to do and I'm certain that
2 counsel will assist you in addressing the right persons in asking for
3 further or for a change in the medical care provided to you at this
5 Is there any matter with you would specifically address as far as
6 we are concerned?
7 THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] I really tried to put down
8 on paper and to make an effort in order not to repeat things, but what is
9 of the essence for me and something which I think you should know is that
10 it is with trust that every week I sign a blank piece of paper which the
11 physicians will use to inform you about my health condition. In an
12 inexplicable way, this is publicly known. I don't know of any case of
13 this having happened to any inmate in the Tribunal.
14 What hit me the hardest is that in an inexplicable way, first it
15 was put on the Tribunal site, that is how it was publicised, my talk with
16 Dr. de Man your specialist, to whom I told the most delicate things about
17 my condition.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Stanisic, that is a matter which is raised in
19 your letter and on which the Chamber is seeking follow-up. So,
20 therefore, it is about whether you are sufficiently informed by doctors
21 and whether others are appropriately or inappropriately informed about
22 these matters that is an issue which is part of the follow-up by this
23 Chamber. So that doesn't need to be repeated. It was a matter which we
24 took up.
25 Any other matter?
1 THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can only
2 tell you this, just my view that you cannot just treat this kind of a
3 disease, these diseases in passing, and that an objective picture of my
4 health condition cannot be gained in this way. I respect this Tribunal
5 and I wish to believe that I will be treated in a fair manner in this
6 connection and that I will receive at least a single report on my health
7 condition. Over the past nine months I have not received a single report
8 about what is happening with me. The only information I get is from the
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Just to briefly respond to that. There are
11 many reports that the Chamber received and that were filed available to
12 counsel, and they can communicate the content of those reports with you.
13 So that is just a short answer to the availability of reports.
14 Mr. Knoops and Mr. Jordash, I take it that you'll pay proper attention to
15 communicating with your client the content of medical reports that are
16 produced and are filed in this case.
17 MR. KNOOPS: We do, Your Honour. I think Mr. Stanisic is
18 referring to the reports of the treating doctors which is also part of
19 these submissions to the Chamber.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that is another matter which, of course, is a
21 matter of patient/doctor relationship and it's a matter which we have
22 also briefly addressed in our follow-up.
23 Yes, Mr. Stanisic. I'd like to conclude because you are
24 addressing matters which we have, I wouldn't say resolved, but at least
25 which we have included our follow-up on your letter.
1 Any other matter which need to be addressed now to the Chamber
2 which would be within the competence of the Chamber to say something
4 THE ACCUSED STANISIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours. Thank
6 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Stanisic. Needless to say that if
7 you need a short break or if you have difficulties in following the
8 proceedings, then, of course, you can always address us and that's, of
9 course, a new situation since you are now in the courtroom which is
10 slightly different from being at a distance.
12 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, if I may?
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Knoops.
14 MR. KNOOPS: Just because we just observed that we didn't receive
15 medical report for today's session. Can it be correct?
16 JUDGE ORIE: I think that there was a yesterday's report. I do
17 not know whether the absence of the report, if it is absent, has to deal
18 with the matter that Mr. Stanisic wanted to come to court. I mean, the
19 main purpose of the daily reports were to be informed about his health
20 condition where he considered that he could not attend court. It's not
21 that if he attends court that we nevertheless would need to receive a
22 daily report. I think it's mainly in view of where he claims to be
23 unable to come to court. But we'll further discuss this matter. The
24 situation has changed slightly. But I have not seen a report. And
25 Mr. Stanisic has not raised anything which would be specifically
1 applicable today which would cause us to immediately ask for such a
3 Then Simatovic Defence want to address. Mr. Petrovic.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on behalf of the
5 Simatovic Defence I have a request to the Trial Chamber; namely,
6 something that relates to the witness that is to appear today before this
7 courtroom, and I will be very brief.
8 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the number of the
10 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I will be brief. The Trial
11 Chamber is well aware of the situation and the circumstances that this
12 team could not have any influence on. In December as soon as the Court
13 went on winter recess, we started our preparations for the witnesses who
14 are coming up, especially those who have -- who can be called the linkage
15 witnesses. Witness F-005, that is to appear, we have tried to
16 familiarise ourselves with his statement and to also find other documents
17 that may be relevant to his testimony.
18 Also, when once we familiarise ourselves with the contents of his
19 testimony, we addressed the state organs with a request that they provide
20 us with some evidence that might be relevant to his testimony and for our
21 cross-examination. We are aware of the contents of his statement and we
22 have submitted this request for cooperation. We've asked for a number of
23 documents, but we've only been able to obtain a fraction of what we have
24 requested, just a few documents that are relevant to his testimony, and
25 many others that are relevant have not been resolved to this day.
1 Also, when we familiarised ourselves with the content of his
2 statement, we realised that it was also necessary to conduct an
3 investigation and explore various circumstances that he mentions in his
4 statement. We have attempted to get in touch with various individuals
5 who might have some relevant information regarding the claims of -- that
6 this witness puts forth. However, because of the time that we had at our
7 disposal and also the circumstances surrounding all that, and I mean that
8 this was a period of several holidays, all these circumstances actually
9 made it practically impossible for us to accomplish anything, or at least
10 not in a manner that would enable us to question this witness in an
11 efficient manner.
12 Also, and this has to do with the overall situation that this
13 Defence team faces, we have, in view of all the thousands of pages that
14 we have been shown, we have only been able to actually review some of
15 those and we have also been unable to go through the documents, or
16 rather, the disclosed documents, we weren't able to really go through
17 them and find those documents that might be relevant and useful for the
18 cross-examination of this witness.
19 What we would like to request, Your Honour, is that we be allowed
20 to postpone the cross-examination of this witness until such time when we
21 can obtain the necessary documents and familiarise ourselves with the
22 large batch of documents that we were provided by the Prosecution.
23 We believed that we would be ready for that today; however, when
24 we actually explored them and when we actually looked at all the things
25 that we have been able to do, we realised that, in fact, we were and we
1 are unable to cross-examine this witness in a proper way and efficiently,
2 either today or at any time soon.
3 So our request to the Trial Chamber would be to postpone the
4 cross-examination by the Simatovic Defence team to be given some time to
5 prepare so that we can do our job properly and that is why we are here.
6 And I know, of course, that our request is not a simple one, but I do
7 plead with you because we are really unable to cross-examine this witness
8 efficiently and properly at this time. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Groome, there's a request, would you like to
10 respond immediately or would you like to do that later today?
11 MR. GROOME: Whichever pleases the court, Your Honour. I can
12 give, I know in substance what the Prosecution's response is.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Or would it be better to first hear whether --
14 because the Stanisic Defence wanted to address the court as well to see
15 whether you can give a consolidated response later.
16 MR. GROOME: Perhaps that is wiser, Your Honour. We can defer
18 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
19 MR. JORDASH: Your Honours, our application is --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, before I give you an opportunity to
21 address the Court, the Chamber has been informed about exchanges of
22 discussions between the parties where -- certainly we are to some extent
23 reluctant and hesitant to see what has been exchanged between the parties
24 at earlier stages of the proceedings. We further have received the
25 queries you had, at least the Stanisic Defence had on its mind in
1 relation to quite a number of documents, and also some information which
2 gave us the impression that specific elements in relation to this witness
3 are linked to more broader issues which are the subject of pending
4 motions, and the Chamber is not inclined to deal with those matters; that
5 is, form of the indictment, challenge to the form of the indictment which
6 was not initially raised within the normal time frame. We still have to
7 consider whether good cause has been shown to raise the issue now,
8 whether we still have to decide on matters raised if we would go to the
9 substance of those matters.
10 The Chamber is not inclined to hear a mixed-up version of this
11 could not be used by the witness because we have received insufficient
12 notice of that and that and that, where that is the subject of pending
13 litigation, and I want you to be aware of that before you address the
14 Court, that we are very much inclined to look at the matters without them
15 being mixed up and that the procedural situation at this time is that we
16 have an indictment, we have a pre-trial brief, and we have a pending
17 motion on a challenge to the form of the indictment, et cetera,
18 et cetera.
19 So to introduce through the witness whether you have been
20 sufficiently put on notice of A, B, C, D, and E is not the way this
21 Chamber would like to deal with this matter. I just wanted to tell you
22 this before I give you an opportunity to address the Chamber.
23 MR. JORDASH: The difficulty, Your Honour, with my application
24 then is this, that it is an application to adjourn the cross-examination
25 on the issue of notice, and specifically on the issue of notice relating
1 to training and who it is the Prosecution say was trained, and who it was
2 the Prosecution say were the Red Berets, and this application arises
3 because of disclosure of yesterday in which certain new information was
4 adduced and that information -- basically information concerning the
5 group Mice, who this witness will now say were trained by the Serbian DB,
6 and that new evidence and the lack of notice to the Defence is
7 inextricably linked to a degree with the wider issues of notice
8 concerning who was a Red Beret, who was trained by the DB.
9 So I can address the issue of new evidence but with difficulty in
10 terms of contextualising why it's problematic in terms of why we need
11 time to investigate. But without touching upon the way in which the
12 Prosecution's case, we submit, has developed in terms of the Red Berets
13 and why this new evidence is so dangerous and why with need time is very
14 difficult to do without reference to the indictment or the pre-trial
16 If Your Honour would simply allow me five minutes to
17 contextualise why we want to adjourn in relation to the issues in the
18 indictment and the pre-trial brief and the notice therein, then I can
19 move very swiftly to the issue of what is particularly new but not
20 exclusively new, as that is contained within the whole of the argument.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, were you referring to proofing notes
23 when you said new information that came up yesterday?
24 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, yes. The proofing note which is ERN
25 number 0350-1756.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Is that 14th of -- no, I've got only summary of
2 additional information, 14th of January, but I have nothing --
3 MR. JORDASH: This is the one, 14th of January. Sorry, it was
4 disclosed to us on Friday I'm told. I beg your pardon. We have trouble
5 getting it off the e-court and that was the problem, but it was disclosed
6 on Friday last.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it was the -- okay. Now, if anything new --
8 first of all, the Chamber does not allow you to deal with the matters
9 which are part of the pending litigation. As I said earlier, we do not
10 want this to be mixed up. The indictment is there. At the time no
11 challenged the form of the indictment was raised. It now has been.
12 Whether we will hear that or not is still to be seen. We have the -- we
13 do not want litigation to be taken from where it belongs and then to put
14 in every place where it suits the party to raise the matter in a
15 different context. So we are not allowing you to deal with that matter.
16 We'll certainly deal with -- we'll seriously deal with the motions filed,
17 first of all with the good cause as far as timing is concerned, and if
18 then still relevant with the substance of it.
19 As far as new information is concerned, it's not unknown that
20 sometimes new information comes up during proofing sessions. If that new
21 information is of such a kind that after we've heard the evidence that in
22 respect of that new piece of information you need further time, then I
23 cannot exclude for the possibility that we would allow you, on that
24 specific subject, either to postpone or to recall the witness if further
25 investigations have been done. That will be seen once we have heard the
1 evidence of the witness and then also we'll decide whether such an
2 opportunity will be given and whether that will be given in respect of
3 the whole of the testimony or only on specific portions where you've
4 indicated we need to check this or verify that.
5 So, therefore, the -- any decision, and that's true for the
6 application by Mr. Petrovic as well, any decision on postponement of
7 cross-examination in its entirety or of the specific portions will be
8 taken after the Chamber has further considered the arguments as
9 Mr. Petrovic has already raised and which you, apart from the litigated
10 issue, have an opportunity to briefly explain to the Court, and then
11 we'll decide after the examination-in-chief whether any of the requests
12 will be granted or not.
13 So you have an opportunity now not to explain, again, the
14 indictment, et cetera, but any specific issues in relation to your
15 request to postponement of cross-examination, and again the Chamber will
16 not decide before we've heard the evidence of the witness.
17 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I will of course, abide by Your
18 Honours' ruling. I will reference only this in relation to the
19 indictment, one statement, and it will not be touching or certainly not
20 repeating the arguments in the motion before you, but the evidence which
21 is new which we seek to have with which basis our application to adjourn,
22 is that contained in the proofing note I've just referred to dated the
23 14th of January 2010, and there are two particular statements which we
24 are concerned with. The first is the first row of page ERN 0673-4825.
25 And that's the statement at the bottom of the first paragraph there.
1 "The name of the unit also changed frequently but the people were always
2 the same." This is a witness, as Your Honours know, who suggests he was
3 part of a unit, and in his original statement he referred to that unit as
4 the JSN, known by civilians as the Red Beret.
5 Your Honours will find the reference to that in his first
6 statement in which he, the witness, notes that the Red Beret unit of
7 which he was part, and this is the statement of 2004, and it's ERN page
8 number 0350-1758, and the witness there states that the Red Beret unit he
9 was part of was called the JSN and it had a particular insignia.
10 The proofing note then changes the nature of that case
12 JUDGE ORIE: I haven't found it.
13 MR. JORDASH: All right, sorry.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Could you give us the paragraph number?
15 MR. JORDASH: Paragraph --
16 JUDGE ORIE: That may assist.
17 MR. JORDASH: -- 7.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Seven, yes.
19 MR. JORDASH: Of that page.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, yes, I see it.
21 MR. JORDASH: The JSN special unit.
22 And on Friday the proofing noted changed that and said no, that's
23 not the case, the name of the unit also changed. And it changed
25 Now, I reference the indictment at this point simply to highlight
1 to Your Honours that the indictment refers to two units of Red Berets
2 only and that's at page 4 -- sorry, paragraph 4 of the indictment wherein
3 the special purpose unit of the MUP Serbia JATD and JSO are referenced as
4 known as Red Berets.
5 So first point I would make is this, that in his first statement
6 the witness raises a wholly new unit, JSN, but I don't dwell on that for
7 the moment in light of Your Honours' ruling. But what I do dwell on is
8 this, that now, only three days before, we are told that the unit that
9 the witness was part of was in fact known by several names and those
10 names changed frequently. A fact we have not had the opportunity to
11 investigate and we would like that opportunity.
12 The second point is this, it's the -- on the second page of the
13 proofing note, it's the -- of Friday, 0673-4826, and --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Second page. Let me just check that. I have to
15 find that because I have a one-page document but perhaps they have copied
16 only one side of it. Is it double?
17 MR. JORDASH: It's -- well, mine is two and a half sheets long,
18 but --
19 JUDGE ORIE: It seems that we are not talking about the same
21 MR. JORDASH: It begins with --
22 JUDGE ORIE: One second.
23 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
24 JUDGE ORIE: It now appears on our screen. What the Chamber had
25 was a document which states confidential date 14th of January, and the
1 heading being summary of additional information. Now, it seems that you
2 are talking about another document.
3 MR. JORDASH: Your Honour, I'm talking about the document which
4 is referred to in the one you've just mentioned. At paragraph 1, the
5 witness made clarifications and they were recorded in a separate
7 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Has that been disclosed to the Chamber or sent
8 to the Chamber? Mr. Hoffmann, wouldn't it have been appropriate to
9 whatever is attached -- I've got -- and my staff tells me that this is
10 the only thing we received.
11 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, my understanding was that when we
12 sent this material to the Defence that we did copy the legal officer.
13 Right now, I can't exclude that we may have missed that. It was
14 certainly our intention to copy the legal officer when providing these
15 documents. At the same time, this document was uploaded into e-court.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but the Chamber has no access to e-court in
17 general terms. I mean, as soon as it is released and if it is tendered
18 then the Chamber looks at it unless it is otherwise provided to the
19 Chamber. But let's then have a look at it on ...
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: I think we did receive proofing notes for another
22 witness, but not for this one.
23 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honour, it has been uploaded to e-court.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, okay. We have it now. But --
25 MR. HOFFMANN: I see that the Court Officer has just uploaded it
1 now on the screen, on the e-court screen for your review.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I'm still a bit lost, I must admit, because
3 the references you have made to paragraph 7, Mr. Jordash.
4 MR. JORDASH: Paragraph 7 of the very first statement of the
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And that's first few lines. Is that your --
7 what you are referring to?
8 MR. JORDASH: I was referring, yes, to the first two lines
9 referring to JSN special purpose unit.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It says that upon completion of the training
11 that he received camouflage uniforms and Red Berets with insignias and
12 then he describes what insignias there were. That's it.
13 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
14 JUDGE ORIE: The description of -- let's -- one second.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber considers that we are better served by
17 first hearing the evidence as the witness gives it today and to hear any
18 clarifications or whether what we find in the proofing notes which is not
19 in evidence which is not available to the Chamber is whether he actually
20 means what he is saying there, and the Chamber is not inclined to start
21 argument for three hours before we hear the first five minutes of
22 evidence of the witness. That is our approach of the matter.
23 Is there any other matter, Mr. Jordash, you would like to raise?
24 I mean, questions as whether in paragraph 7 he describes a uniform he has
25 been given or whether that was the permanent name under which he operated
1 is perhaps a matter still to be explored. And once we hear what he says
2 about this, if he says the names changed frequently, was he referring to
3 how they were perceived by the population, is it the nicknames that
4 changed, was it the name of the unit? I mean, all kind of questions
5 which are better resolved by first of all focusing on the evidence the
6 witness will give us.
7 Any other matter at this moment, Mr. Jordash?
8 MR. JORDASH: Well, there is one more piece of new evidence
9 but --
10 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
11 MR. JORDASH: -- I'm happy to deal with it as per Your Honours'
12 indication at the end of the witness's testimony.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if would you briefly indicate what it is, then
14 perhaps during the break we can consider to what extent it is
15 appropriately put as an circumstance which would oppose against even
16 starting to hear the evidence of this witness or to invite the parties to
17 cross-examine him on it. So, therefore, if you briefly indicate what it
18 is, then.
19 MR. JORDASH: This arises from the proofing note of Friday. It's
20 on page 2 where --
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, could we have that on the screen.
22 MR. JORDASH: It's the comment at the top of the page on the
23 left-hand column: "I want to add that the group of Milan Ninkovic, also
24 known as Mice, was trained by Bozovic and his men sometime after the 3rd
25 of May 1992."
1 I would put our position simply like this: The indictment names
2 two Red Beret units, the pre-trial brief does not name the Mice group as
3 a Red Beret unit and neither does the opening, and neither did the
4 witness in any of his statements until this statement on Friday. Now the
5 Prosecution suggests the Mice group was trained at the Red Beret camp and
6 therefore as a consequence were a Red Beret group, as I understand the
7 Prosecution case.
8 JUDGE ORIE: I think what happens is that the Prosecution informs
9 you about the fact that the witness raised this issue during proofing and
10 whether the Prosecution has changed its mind on these matters, or whether
11 in view of new information they want to seek leave to amend the
12 indictment. I've got no idea how they procedurally want to deal with
13 that, but I do understand that this is new information for you, and it
14 might cause you to say that we need to further investigate that. And
15 then on that specific issue, we'll certainly consider that as in relation
16 to any other issue you would like to raise with us.
17 MR. JORDASH: The other issues, Your Honours, thank you for the
18 indication, Your Honours I can raise the other issues as they arise with
19 the exhibits.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
21 MR. JORDASH: Thank you.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Then I am -- the usual cause is to have sessions of
23 75 minutes, which would allow us another 15 minutes at this moment. Who
24 is going to examine the witness?
25 MR. GROOME: Mr. Hoffmann is going to take the next witness,
1 JF-005, Your Honour.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Protective measures in place being face
3 distortion, voice distortion, and pseudonym JF-005 may be brought into
4 the courtroom once it is confirmed that all the protective measures are
5 well in place.
6 Madam Registrar.
7 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, may I take it that since there was
9 some communication with the -- especially with the Stanisic Defence that
10 you'll intelligently use that new knowledge and seek to avoid any
11 unnecessary problems? If you know what the other party has as its
12 problems, you sometimes can anticipate rather than seek further
13 confrontation on those problems.
14 MR. HOFFMANN: Absolutely, Your Honours I'm not seeking
16 JUDGE ORIE: For example -- just to give an example, if there
17 would be lengthy argument about whether or not a certain photograph is
18 something the witness could say something about it, then you could argue
19 that for ten minutes, you also could see whether there are any other ways
20 of getting this photograph into evidence as a bar table document or as an
21 agreed picture of a situation. I mean, there are many ways that lead to
23 [The witness entered court]
24 JUDGE ORIE: Good afternoon, Witness JF-005. Can you hear me in
25 a language you understand?
1 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter cannot hear the witness.
2 JUDGE ORIE: The interpreter cannot hear you. Is there any ...
3 Yes, can you hear me in a language you understand?
4 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter cannot hear the witness.
5 JUDGE ORIE: There still seems to be a technical problem because
6 the interpreters cannot hear the witness. If you -- if you have one
7 moment, we have a technical problem.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness say something, please?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please say a few words so that we can test
10 the system?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know, but I can
12 follow everything that's being said.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Now the interpreters receive what you say.
14 Witness JF-005, before you give evidence in this court, the Rules
15 of Procedure and Evidence require that you make a solemn declaration that
16 you will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
17 The text is now handed out to you by madam usher, and I'd like to invite
18 you to make that solemn declaration.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
20 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please be seated. Witness JF-005, you
22 will first be examined by Mr. Hoffmann, who is on your right, and
23 Mr. Hoffmann is counsel for the Prosecution. You may proceed,
24 Mr. Hoffmann.
25 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honour.
1 WITNESS: WITNESS JF-005
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 Examination by Mr. Hoffmann:
4 Q. Witness, the court has ordered certain protective measures with
5 respect to you and your evidence here today. These include the use of a
6 pseudonym and face and voice distortion. Therefore, I will not refer you
7 to you by name but instead by your pseudonym JF-005.
8 MR. HOFFMANN: And I would ask that we first see 65 ter 5205 on
9 the screen which is the pseudonym sheet.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Not to be shown to the public.
11 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
12 Q. And, Witness, I ask you to look at the pseudonym sheet in front
13 of you and direct your attention to where it says witness name, can you
14 confirm that this is your name?
15 A. Yes, this is my name.
16 Q. And is that also your date of birth on this sheet?
17 A. Yes, this is the correct date of birth, as well as my first and
18 last name.
19 Q. And did you, in fact, sign this sheet yourself with your
21 A. Yes, I did.
22 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, the Prosecution tenders this
23 pseudonym sheet into evidence under seal.
24 JUDGE ORIE: I hear of no objections. Madam Registrar, that
25 would be.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P136 under seal, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: And is admitted as such under seal. Please proceed.
3 MR. HOFFMANN:
4 Q. Witness, do you recall giving a statement to investigators from
5 this Tribunal?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 MR. HOFFMANN: I would ask that we please see 65 ter 5184 on the
8 screen, not to be broadcast. It's ERN 0350-1756 to 0350-1768. This is a
9 statement dated 24 and 25 January, 2004
10 Q. Witness, on the screen before you is a document purporting to be
11 a statement given by you on 24 and 25 January, 2004. Do you recall
12 giving a statement on these days?
13 A. I do.
14 MR. HOFFMANN: And if we can please go to the bottom of that
16 Q. And if you would please look at the signature, if that's yours?
17 That should be on the English original statement.
18 A. Yes, that's my signature.
19 MR. HOFFMANN: And if we can please go to page 12 of this
20 document in the English version.
21 There seems to be a problem in finding the last page of the
22 statement with his signature. Given that he has confirmed that he has
23 given a statement on the date and confirmed his signature on the -- oh,
24 there we go.
25 Q. Looking at this page, Mr. Witness, can you identify your
1 signature on this page as well?
2 A. Yes, it is my signature.
3 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you. Then I would ask that we can see 65
4 ter 5185 on the screen. It's ERN 0672-5345 to 0672-5355. It's an
5 additional ICTY witness statement taken in May 2008 and finalised on 3
6 and 4 November 2009.
7 Q. Witness, on the screen before you, you see a document purporting
8 to be a statement given by you in May 2008 and finalised in early
9 November 2009. Do you recall giving a statement on these days?
10 A. I do recall.
11 MR. HOFFMANN: And if we can please go to the bottom of the B/C/S
13 Q. And I'll ask you if you recognise your own signature on this
15 A. Yes, of course.
16 MR. HOFFMANN: And finally, if we can go to the last page of the
17 B/C/S document, that is page 11.
18 Q. With the same question, whether you recognise your signature?
19 A. Yes, that's my signature.
20 Q. Witness, did you have a chance to review both of these statements
21 in a language that you understand before coming to testify?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And did you have a chance to note some additional clarifications
24 and corrections prior to your testimony in writing?
25 A. Yes, we did make some corrections and we provided explanations.
1 MR. HOFFMANN: I would ask that we now see 65 ter 5206 on the
2 screen. It is ERN 0673-4825 to 0673-4827. It is a statement provided by
3 this witness on 14 January 2010
4 Q. Witness, if you look at this document in front of you, does that
5 table include all the corrections and clarifications you wanted to make
6 to the 2004 and 2009 statement?
7 A. I cannot see the entire text. I should see the whole text. Yes,
8 that is it.
9 MR. HOFFMANN: And if we can please go to page 3, that is the
10 last of this document.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is that document. That's
12 the document.
13 MR. HOFFMANN:
14 Q. Did you, in fact, review this document in your own language and
15 then sign it with your own pseudonym?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. And with these clarifications contained in this document, would
18 you say that your two statements are accurate and true?
19 A. Yes, they are true, but they need to be supplemented somewhat.
20 Q. If you were asked the same questions today as you were asked in
21 2004 and 2009 with those additions that we've just seen, would you give
22 the same answers in court today here?
23 A. Yes, of course.
24 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, at this point in time, the
25 Prosecution would ask that both the 2004 and the 2009 statement of this
1 witness are admitted into evidence, that is 65 ter 5184 and 5185. In
2 light of protective measures ordered by this Chamber, we ask that the
3 statements be placed under seal. The Prosecution has produced redacted
4 versions of both of the statements that could be made public. Those are
5 marked in e-court as 65 ter 5184.1 and respectively 5185.1. At the same
6 time, the Prosecution tenders the additional statement of 14 January 2010
7 as it is part of his statement, which would be 65 ter 5206. The last
8 document itself does not contain any details of the witness or any
9 sensitive information, therefore there is no additional redacted version
10 of this document.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Witness JF-005, you earlier said that the -- you
12 said they are true but they need to be supplemented somewhat. Did you
13 refer to the additions and -- you had already made or are there any other
14 matters in those statements which are not accurate?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was referring to the already made
17 JUDGE ORIE: Then that being clear, any objections against
18 submissions in evidence of the two statements and the -- I briefly call
19 it the proofing note?
20 MR. JORDASH: In relation to the proofing note, the Defence do
21 oppose the admission of that for the reasons that it contains the
22 additional evidence relating to Mice which we would argue is new and
23 should be excluded before that statement is exhibited. I won't, in light
24 of Your Honours' ruling develop that argument unless Your Honours invite
25 me to at this stage, but Your Honours have my point.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The Simatovic Defence?
2 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we subscribe to what
3 has been said by Mr. Stanisic's Defence.
4 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber will decide on the all three together
5 after the break but since the body of evidence which is contained in the
6 two statements is not in dispute, there's no reason not yet to start the
7 examination of the witness on that. But since we need a break anyhow at
8 this moment, it might be that the matter has been resolved before the
9 examination -- the further examination even starts.
10 We'll have a break and we'll resume at 5 minutes past 4.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 3.35 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 4.10 p.m.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, please proceed.
14 MR. HOFFMANN: The Chamber indicated before the break that it
15 would decide about the admission --
16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
17 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honour, you had indicated before the break
18 that you would decide about the admission of the statements, the three,
19 and I would ...
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ORIE: Both the 2004 and the 2009 statement, as well as the
22 additional information sheet are admitted into evidence.
23 Madam Registrar.
24 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P137, P138 under seal, and Exhibit P139,
25 Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: The first two, let me just check now, the statements
2 under seal and the additional information as a public document.
3 Please, proceed, Mr. Hoffmann.
4 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honour. Part of the filed 92
5 motion were number of related or associated exhibits that are discussed
6 in the 2009 statement which is now Exhibit P138, and I would ask that
7 those be admitted into evidence before we continue with the
8 examination-in-chief. We have prepared an updated table of that annex
9 indicating which of those exhibits in the meantime have already been
10 admitted so they need not be admitted again. I can maybe with the court
11 usher's help hand over those but that would be just for ease of
12 reference, if that assists the Court. And there are copies for the
13 Defence as well.
14 JUDGE ORIE: I think there were specific objections also against
15 photographs, is that -- and other attached documents.
16 MR. HOFFMANN: In the -- if I recall, in the initial response of
17 the Stanisic Defence of the 92 ter application, there were, in fact,
18 objections to one of the exhibits being 65 ter 5169, it's a collection of
19 photographs, where in fact prior to the filing of their response three
20 days before that in court with the agreement of both Defence teams, that
21 exhibit was actually admitted into evidence. It's on page 4 of this
22 updated annex. It's listed as item 13 in the annex to the 92 ter motion.
23 This is already an Exhibit, P87. So I would think that --
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, that seems at least to be an answer to that.
25 You are not seeking that we admit it anymore. Then on the other
1 documents, shall we go through them one by one to see whether there are
2 any. Number 1, photo of uniform badge worn. Any objections? No
3 objections. Then number 3, Doboj payment list, 65 ter 4839. No
4 objections. Number 5, payment list special unit in Doboj, 65 ter 5011.
5 Any objections? 6 on the list is already in evidence. 7, 65 ter 3842,
6 KDF file of Slobodan Katanic. Any objections?
7 MR. JORDASH: There are objections to that exhibit, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
9 MR. JORDASH: Let me just find that. I beg your pardon, no
11 JUDGE ORIE: Next one, 65 ter 4594, KDF application of
12 Goran Djuric. No objections. Next one 65 ter 4485, KDF file of
13 Makric [phoen], Mladen. I hear of no objections. Next one 65 ter 4574,
14 KDF file of Todic, Miromir. No objections. Next one, 65 ter 4680, also
15 a KDF file of a different person.
16 MR. JORDASH: There is an objection to this one.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and that objection?
18 MR. JORDASH: The objection is, as I understand this witness's
19 position, there's --
20 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, before you explain, can we deal with that in
21 open session? Let me see.
22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
23 JUDGE ORIE: Can we deal with it in further detail in open
24 session or should we move into private?
25 MR. JORDASH: I think it's fine in open session, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
2 MR. JORDASH: The objection is simple. It's an objection to
4 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
5 MR. JORDASH: The witness himself has expressed doubt as to the
6 authenticity of this document, and you'll find that, Your Honours, at
7 page 0672-5345, which is the composite statement from the 2nd and 3rd of
8 May, and the 4th of November, in which the witness at paragraph 35 states
9 that he doubts the authenticity for two reasons. One, that --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Jordash is inaudible. Could he please
11 speak into the microphone.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, you are invited to speak into the
13 microphone so that the interpreters can hear you.
14 MR. JORDASH: Sorry, I beg your pardon. The witness doubts the
15 authenticity for two reasons: One, that it refers to the corridor being
16 open between Doboj and Belgrade
17 secondarily, the exhibit mentions or purports to mention Mr. Frenki
18 Simatovic, and the witness again notes that it's highly unlikely such an
19 application would have mentioned him at that time, which is mid-May of
20 1992. In light of those reasonable, we submit, questions as to
21 authenticity, we object.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, it seems to be more contesting the truth of the
23 content rather than authenticity, which of course is not the same.
24 MR. JORDASH: But it's -- the content are unreliable and as such
25 to -- and unreliable to such an extent that it suggests these
1 documents -- this document isn't authentic. That's the way we would put
2 our objection.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And any formal challenges to the authenticity,
4 I mean appearance or? So apart from the content.
5 MR. JORDASH: Apart from the content we would submit there's no
6 indicia of authenticity. There's nothing which will indicate that it was
8 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you allow, may I
10 just add something to what Mr. Jordash has already said and in full
11 support of he has already said. This document, as far as I can
12 understand, is a document that has to be filled out by the person
13 applying for financial aid, so there is no way, nor has it ever been
14 checked that someone has actually filled out this form in order to have
15 some gain. When this was filled out and how, no one has ever checked
16 that as far as I can understand the documents after reviewing them. And
17 as Mr. Jordash has already said, and noticed, there are obvious problems
18 with the document and the problems arise from the way that the document
19 was created, and it was created by someone just putting forth some facts
20 without this ever having been checked by anyone else.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann.
22 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honour, I think, as you indicated, there are
23 separate issues. One is the authenticity and we have provided both
24 Defence teams about the origin of those documents, of all those Captain
25 Dragan Fund files. Those were handed over at the headquarter of the
1 Captain Dragan Fund in Belgrade
2 think, about the authenticity when they come from. The matters raised by
3 the Defence, I think, are matters that are going to the weight to be
4 attached to such documents, and I want to note that, yes, the witness
5 makes some comments about that document but if you carefully look at what
6 he says, he does question one of -- one part of the document, which is
7 the certificate which is attached to it.
8 My understanding of the procedure is that in fact persons who
9 served in any unit could apply for funds. They would fill out the
10 initial form, which is basically always the same in those files, and then
11 that gets to the Captain Dragan Fund in Belgrade where they then attach
12 some certificates or some decision-making notes. But again, I think
13 those are matters that are going to the weight of this exhibit rather
14 than the admissibility.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Let's move to the next one. This one is --
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] If you allow me.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] If you allow, Your Honours, just
19 one additional note. The document by just looking at it we can see that
20 there is nothing in it that actually confirms its authenticity. No one
21 has ever checked that. There is no stamp on it. There is nothing
22 showing its authenticity. We only see that it was filled out in
23 handwriting and that is all that can be concluded from that paper.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Could we have it briefly on our screen, the 65
25 ter 4680.
1 MR. HOFFMANN: If I may add, Your Honour, one thing. If we could
2 look maybe at the last page in the B/C/S document, which I think is page
3 7, it does include also a passport copy of the applicant.
4 JUDGE ORIE: The Chamber already indicates this, that 65 ter 4680
5 will be MFI
6 this list, which is 65 ter 44. Any objections?
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise for
8 interrupting, my client has just pointed out something in relation to
9 this previous document. The particulars in the identity card differ from
10 those entered in the form itself. Namely, the father's name is
11 inconsistent. I just note it myself at this moment.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Let's have a look at this to start with. The
13 father's name being Jefto in the personal details, and you said that
14 differs from?
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] On page 7 of the B/C/S, where we
17 have the photostatic copy of the identity card, please.
18 JUDGE ORIE: Let's just look at it. The word --
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Actually, the last name is
20 different, it seems.
21 JUDGE ORIE: The problem is I can't see what ...
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] It is the first word, Your Honour,
23 that has created this confusion. Namely, Lukavac actually obviously
24 refers to the municipality, not to the surname. If that is so, I
25 apologise and I withdraw my objection.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Because I see both Dusko as apparently the first
2 name and Drobic as apparently the family name, father's name Jefto. So
3 therefore it seems to refer to the --
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] That is correct. I apologise,
5 Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Nevertheless, for the other reasons but not then for
7 the last reason invoked, the Chamber will MFI that one. We had moved to
8 12, which is 65 ter 44. I didn't hear of any objections earlier, neither
9 do I now. Next one is 65 ter 4479 -- Mr. Jordash.
10 MR. JORDASH: May I request that the witness take off his
11 headphones, please.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, let's first establish whether he understand or
13 speak any English.
14 Do you speak any English, Witness JF-005, or do you understand
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I understand it.
17 JUDGE ORIE: Which --
18 MR. JORDASH: Perhaps, I'll try to deal with it without reference
19 to, if that's --
20 JUDGE ORIE: If you can deal with it in the presence of the
21 witness. Of course, I do not know what you are going to raise and
22 therefore leave it in your hands at this moment.
23 MR. JORDASH: The objection is this, that this Exhibit 4479, or
24 proposed exhibit, is the result of a request from the Prosecution at the
25 ICTY, a series of inquiries was made by the Prosecution of the Republika
1 Srpska MUP and the report is purportedly in answer to those inquiries.
2 The inquiries, Your Honours, will find at page 3, questions such
3 as who were the members of the Red Beret, how was the unit formed,
4 et cetera. And this document purports to be in answer to those specific
5 questions. It is an either, we submit, an expert report, or it is a
6 statement which ought to have been submitted pursuant to Rule 66 and the
7 normal rules of disclosure, and it wasn't. And it is, in our submission,
8 wrong to try to introduce such a report which is effectively an
9 investigation at the behest of the Prosecution which, because it's
10 introduced in this form, is almost impossible to challenge.
11 We don't know --
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash, if I may cut you short. You are
13 referring to Rule 66, it appears to me that the main problem might be in
14 rules 92 bis, 92 ter.
15 MR. JORDASH: I meant to say.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. That's what you meant to say.
17 MR. JORDASH: Yes.
18 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, you say this document was produced at
19 the request of this Tribunal and for purposes of the proceedings before
20 this Tribunal, and for that reason admission into evidence should be
21 under rules 92 bis, 92 ter, or under Rule 89, but not through this
23 MR. JORDASH: Precisely, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann.
25 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honour, I think in the first place again on
1 just a quick note on the authenticity, I think there is no issue because
2 this is --
3 JUDGE ORIE: It has not been raised. Authenticity has not been
4 raised, was it?
5 MR. HOFFMANN: Ah, yes.
6 JUDGE ORIE: So, therefore, let's only respond to what was
8 MR. HOFFMANN: On the issue on how and to tender this document, I
9 would like to note and submit that previously, I think it was actually
10 the last witness we heard before the break, the Defence itself introduced
11 the document which is also on the Prosecution list, that was Exhibit D10,
12 which was also an official document in response on some queries from this
13 Tribunal to the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the matter of Debeli
14 and others. It did also include matters of intelligence surveys or
15 summaries, analysis as to the massacres at Djakina [phoen]. So from that
16 point of view I would submit that we have already set a precedent even by
17 the Defence. At the same time, we are happy to tender this from the bar
18 table. We could also foresee that we --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Isn't it true that in view of the character of the
20 objections, that tendering it from the bar table would even be worse
21 because what Mr. Jordash actually is saying is that, this document
22 contains all kind of results of what was explored and investigated, and
23 that it's unfair to introduce such a document which was prepared for
24 Tribunal purposes without having an opportunity to cross-examine the
25 author of it. That seems to me to be the objection. And then to say,
1 well, we can bar table it, is not a real solution to the problem is it?
2 MR. HOFFMANN: I was about to add that in the final instance, of
3 course the Prosecution could also call the person who signed this report,
4 if the Prosecution would be allowed to call additional witnesses. That
5 is obviously a possibility. But again, I want to note that --
6 JUDGE ORIE: This is blackmail, Mr. Hoffmann. Well, I say it
7 with a smile. It's blackmail saying, well, of course we could call that
8 witness, but then you would have to allow us to call additional witnesses
9 instead of using the amount of time granted to you in the best way. You
10 say, well, if you want more, then you should give us more time. That's
11 not exactly, I'm saying don't take me too seriously when I say blackmail,
12 but you understand what I mean.
13 MR. HOFFMANN: Certainly, Your Honour. But I think it's
14 certainly our case that we have taken note of the decision to limit the
15 number of hours that we are allowed to, the number of witnesses, but
16 that's exactly why we try to stay within those parameters and try to
17 introduce some of the evidence through witnesses. If that is not
18 possible, then at least we might at some point ask for through the
19 respective motion for additional time.
20 For the time being, I would not like to spend much more time on
21 discussing this exhibit. If need be we'll just mark it for
22 identification if the Chamber has still some doubts about whether or not
23 this should be admitted this way.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, especially the argument on D10, Mr. Jordash,
25 any response to that? D10 being a similar situation where the Defence
1 considered it apparently not unfair, that's the argument raised.
2 MR. JORDASH: Certainly. Well, the crux of our objection is one
3 of unfairness. Unfairness arising from a lack of ability of being able
4 to challenge. D10, nobody challenged it so of course no unfairness
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You would say if there's no wish to
7 cross-examine why complain about not being able to cross-examine.
8 MR. JORDASH: Indeed.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, it's, I think, a bit the same as with
10 leading questions. A lot of leading questions are put to witnesses, and
11 then to say if there's an objection against leading, well, but you have
12 put leading questions to witnesses as well. It depends on whether
13 there's any specific interest at any moment to use the option to object
14 or not. Apparently here, Mr. Jordash does whereas you did not in
15 relation to D10. Yes. This document will be MFI'd for the time being
17 I move on, 65 ter 5168.
18 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
20 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Simatovic's Defence has an
21 objection to the last three documents, but I would be happier if I could
22 voice those objections without the presence of the witness. They are
23 different objections to these three last documents, of course.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. I do understand that. I suggest that in order
25 to avoid that the witness moves in and out, that I'll give you an
1 opportunity prior to the next break and that is unless these three last
2 documents that is 65 ter 5168, 65 ter 5015, and 65 ter 4493, could you --
3 I don't know to what extent you want to specifically deal with them, but
4 could you postpone that until after the next break?
5 MR. HOFFMANN: Certainly, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Then, Madam Registrar - you have an opportunity,
7 Mr. Petrovic, to deal with the matter in the absence of the witness - I
8 invite you to already assign provisionally numbers to the documents as we
9 find them on the list, under number 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, although
10 that one will be MFI
11 will be MFI
12 be MFI
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the numbers are assigned as
14 Exhibit P141 through P153. Exhibits P148, P150, P151, 152, and 153 will
15 remain marked for identification.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. And the others, that is, therefore, P141,
17 P142, P143, P144, P145, P146, P147 are admitted into evidence.
18 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
19 JUDGE ORIE: P148 marked for identification. P149 admitted into
20 evidence. P150, P151, P152, and P153 marked for identification under
21 those numbers.
22 Please proceed, Mr. Hoffmann.
23 MR. HOFFMANN: Thank you, Your Honours.
24 Q. Witness, in your evidence, you describe how you attended training
25 at Mount Ozren
1 the Court in a few words how you got recruited to the Red Berets at that
3 A. First of all, we did not know they were Red Berets, and we were
4 recruited by the local political parties such as the SDS was.
5 Q. At that time were you told who or which unit did provide the
7 A. We did not know at that time. We only later got this information
8 after entering Doboj.
9 Q. And could you tell the Court what you -- later on when you
10 entered Doboj, around that time, what you learned about the unit and who
11 provided the training?
12 A. During the training we did not know who was providing the
13 training. When we entered Doboj, people were telling, and later we
14 actually learned, that the course was being provided by the state
15 security service. What we were only told at the time was that we were a
16 special -- that they were a special unit.
17 Q. Just for the record, if you refer to the state security service,
18 of which country do you refer to?
19 A. At that time one could say that they were from Bosnia and
22 service. In fact, I'm certain of that.
23 Q. Can you tell the Court who personally was in charge of the actual
24 training on Mount Ozren
25 A. Radojica Bozovic was the founder. Riki, Vuk, and Njegos
1 were the instructors.
2 Q. Can you tell the Court where Bozovic was from originally?
3 A. According to the information that we had, he hailed from
5 Q. Would you be able to indicate on a map where the camp on
6 Mount Ozren
7 A. Yes, I am able to show you where the training camp was.
8 MR. HOFFMANN: I would ask that we see Exhibit P80 on the screen.
9 That is actually map 30 from the court binder.
10 Q. Witness, do you see Doboj in the middle of that map?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. And from there do you find the place you say the Red Berets had
13 had a camp at in spring 1992?
14 A. Yes, I can see that too.
15 MR. HOFFMANN: Could I ask the court usher, please, to assist the
16 witness with a pen to mark the map.
17 Q. Witness, I would ask you to mark the location of the camp with a
18 red cross and then sign the map at the bottom with your pseudonym and
19 today's date, please.
20 A. [Marks]
21 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, I would tender this Exhibit P80 as
22 marked by this witness indicating the location of the Red Beret camp on
23 Mount Ozren
24 JUDGE ORIE: Any objections? No objections. Madam Registrar.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P154, Your Honours.
1 JUDGE ORIE: P154 is admitted into evidence. Please proceed.
2 MR. HOFFMANN: And if I may just for the record, so that it's
3 clear on the record, the witness put a red cross just north of the
4 monastery on Mount Ozren
5 south-east of Doboj.
6 I would then ask that we have the next exhibit, 65 ter --
7 JUDGE ORIE: For one reason or the other the map is still on our
8 screen although the marking has disappeared, I don't know whether this
9 has any effect on -- has no fact on the evidence. Please proceed.
10 MR. HOFFMANN: If I could then have 65 ter 31 which is now
11 Exhibit P141 on the screen.
12 Q. Witness, in your 2009 statement, Exhibit P138, at paragraph 6,
13 you refer to a patch that was used by your unit in Doboj 1992. Is the
14 patch that we see on the screen now the one that you were, in fact, using
15 in Doboj at the times in 1992?
16 A. Yes, it is one of them.
17 Q. Were there other patches or insignias at the time that you did
19 A. No, this was the emblem that we used most of the time.
20 Q. In your 2009 statement, and again that's P138, you refer to a
21 visit of Franko Simatovic to the training camp at Mount Ozren
22 mention Frenki Simatovic in your statement, are you in fact referring to
23 one of the accused in this case?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And apart from the one visit of Frenki that you witnessed
1 yourself, were there other visits of Frenki Simatovic to Mount Ozren
3 A. Not that I know of. There may have been.
4 Q. Have you heard of any such visits?
5 A. Yes, I did hear something.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to raise an
8 objection, but I really cannot do it in the presence of the witness, and
9 it has do with notifying what the Defences here find out about what the
10 witness statement will be. The entire procedure, the investigation,
11 everything actually becomes irrelevant because things happen only once we
12 enter this court. Actually, I have to elaborate on this to explain what
13 I'm saying because there are some things that I hear for the first time
14 and I have talked to him. On previous occasions, it is impossible that
15 he hasn't been asked these questions before.
16 If you will allow me, I wish to say a few words in this
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: It is not "I have
20 talked to him," but "he has been talked to on many previous occasions."
21 JUDGE ORIE: Witness JF-005, we have a few matters now which the
22 parties would like to discuss in your absence. Although initially I had
23 on my mind to do it just before the break, the list is growing.
24 Therefore, could you please follow the usher so that we can hear what the
25 parties want to bring to our attention. And would you remain on standby.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic, let's deal with everything at the
3 time. You wanted to make submissions in relation to the last three
4 exhibits and now apparently in respect of the line of questioning. Could
5 we first hear from you further details of the objections again 65 ter
6 5168, 5015, and 4493.
7 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. As far
8 as the first document is concerned, 5168, this document which has been
9 tendered is a document where a number of vehicles are mentioned that have
10 been stolen by some individuals. There are several vehicles mentioned
11 there. I don't know exactly how many, three, four, or five, but in any
12 case not a large number of them. In paragraph 40 of the statement, the
13 witness, and I'm referring to the statement of 2009, the witness mentions
14 2.000 vehicles, Volkswagon Golf II vehicles. I cannot understand what
15 the connection and I cannot in any way reconcile these vehicles to 2.000
16 vehicles and this document that is being mentioned here. I simply do not
17 see that this is the way to actually tender this document into evidence.
18 Perhaps there is another way that it can be done through this witness.
19 Then further on he says that I believe that this document is
20 authentic and that it is consistent with what I know about the events,
21 but in paragraph 40 he mentions 2.000 vehicle, whereas in this
22 vehicle [as interpreted] you can see that only a few vehicles are
23 mentioned. So I cannot reconcile these two. I don't see that this is
24 the way to do it, but of course, the Prosecution has other options and
25 other ways through which he may tender this document into evidence if
1 they feel that it is relevant and of probative value.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let me be short. If someone says that 2.000 cars
3 were taken, does that mean that they were all taken at the same time and
4 dealt with in one report, or could it be that this report supports this
5 testimony when giving at least one example of the report on stolen
6 vehicles? And more important, is this a matter going to weight or is
7 there any admissibility issue involved? Could you please start with the
8 last one.
9 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] As far as I see it, this is not
10 admissible through this witness, because the testimony of this witness
11 about his own personal knowledge and what we see here are inconsistent.
12 So it is -- perhaps I'm mistaken, but I feel that this is not the way to
13 do it. They can either do it from the bar table or through some other
14 witness, but not through this witness. That is the gist of my objection.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Where is the inconsistency?
16 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I understood this
17 correctly, they said that they had taken 2.000 Golf II vehicles. This is
18 what is stated in paragraph 40 in the statement of 2009. Whereas in
19 document 5168, totally different vehicles are referred to and there are
20 only a few vehicles, just a few vehicles and not all of them being Golf
21 vehicles, but different vehicles. I can't recall all of them right now.
22 I remember there was mention made of a Mitsubishi or some other vehicles.
23 I can't say for sure.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Could we have the document on our screen for a
25 second, that is 65 ter 5168.
1 MR. HOFFMANN: I would suggest that we go to the second page.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Let's be very practical. First of all, I do not see
3 an inconsistency if I say that 2.000 vehicles were stolen, that if we
4 find a report in which it is reported that some vehicles including
5 vehicles of that make were stolen, that that's inconsistent. It may be
6 examples, and that's really a matter of evaluation and weight of the
7 evidence rather than admissibility. Apart from that since you said,
8 well, it can be tendered from the bar table, the objection seems to be an
9 optical one.
10 65 ter 5015, Mr. Petrovic, what's the objection? And could we
11 have it on the screen.
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a document,
13 you will see it in a moment, which to me it seems completely unclear as
14 to the source of this document. Whether this is a telegram, who it is
15 being sent to, when it was sent, and what points to its authenticity. So
16 none of these things are clear to me. It would appear to have been
17 retyped, and I have to say that I'm completely confused when I look at
18 this document. I simply don't understand any of it.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann.
20 MR. JORDASH: May I, sorry to interrupt, may I add my endorsement
21 of that objection.
22 JUDGE ORIE: That's yes, although, you didn't reserve your
23 position at the time, but we have to decide on the objection anyhow, so
24 therefore it's now a Stanisic objection as well.
25 Mr. Hoffmann.
1 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honour, this document was seized in
2 Banja Luka
3 Republika Srpska. As it stands these are two entries, log entries, of 3
4 July 1992 at the relevant time. They do mention Bozovic, they do mention
5 his cooperation with the RS MUP, and when this was put to the witness, he
6 made his comments that he made in the 2009 statement. How much weight at
7 the end to be put to it is one question, but it's certainly, in our view,
8 authentic. It's part of the witness evidence already in that that he
9 makes comments on it, comments that we are not able to make because we
10 are not familiar with the circumstances, but the witness was.
11 JUDGE ORIE: Could you take us exactly to that part of his
12 statement. You said the 2009 statement.
13 MR. HOFFMANN: It's P13 --
14 JUDGE ORIE: Paragraph?
15 MR. HOFFMANN: -- 8.
16 JUDGE ORIE: Which paragraph?
17 MR. HOFFMANN: Paragraph 41.
18 JUDGE ORIE: 41.
19 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Looking at another document it seems that both notes
21 are in relation to the above-mentioned illegal removal of cars from the
22 area, and it shows the cooperation between Bozovic and the RS MUP.
23 That's all he says about it.
24 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes, Your Honour. I'm not making a big point
25 about this one document, but it flows from the previous document in that
1 in our view, and I think we are now almost in the final arguments here,
2 whether or not that will help the Prosecution case, but it does
3 corroborate the witness evidence where he says that the Red Berets were
4 in the area and that they were looting and that they were taking cars
5 away from that area to Serbia
6 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. The problem is whether this could have been a
7 document, you say it's part of a log. I've seen a lot of log-books in my
8 life, but they usually are in some kind of a format. These apparently
9 are two isolated entries in a log of which we have not even seen the
10 title page. I don't know what the log is. Could the witness explain
11 that, do you think?
12 MR. HOFFMANN: I would not expect that he would be familiar with
13 the actual log because he didn't put that log together or has not seen
14 it, as is I my understanding.
15 JUDGE ORIE: Then all his answers are not answers to the
16 authenticity of this document, were they?
17 MR. HOFFMANN: No, on the authenticity, I refer to where the OTP
18 got this document from. This information was provided to both Defence
19 teams and it was my understanding from the latest e-mail exchange that on
20 the authenticity of these documents there were no further issues.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. HOFFMANN: But maybe I misunderstood.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Now, therefore, if you ask me to look at this
24 document to say what is this, well, this is about 120 vehicle, I could
25 answer a question as well, and it's relevant 3rd of July, so I would be a
1 perfect witness for you, would I? I mean, let's try -- the witness says
2 that -- apparently that vehicles were stolen. Now, you have provided us
3 with a report in which theft of cars is reported. What we now see is a
4 document, you say it comes from a log. A log of what? It has dates on
5 it and says that a convoy of 120 vehicles has passed in your direction,
6 and now the witness can tell us not knowing what the log is, not having
7 ever seen it before, that this indicates or that this supports, it's
8 difficult to understand.
9 MR. HOFFMANN: To cut it short, Your Honours, I will not insist
10 on this particular document in the interest of time for the time being.
11 If it be marked for identification, we may come back to it at some point,
12 but I don't think that we have to spend more time on this, if I may.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Perhaps it should have been given more thought in
15 Next one, Mr. Petrovic. 65 ter 4493. Perhaps we could have it
16 on the screen.
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this document was
18 produced by actually printing it off of a website. The website's name is
19 www.redberets.com. So as you will see in a moment, the contents of this
20 document is in fact a picture, someone's picture of a snap-shot and
21 history of this case as seen by an individual who then put it all in this
22 document. Who was the father of the unit, who was the commander, who was
23 not the commander, and so on and so forth. So in other words, this is a
24 web site print out. I don't know who is behind this web site name,
25 www.redberets.com and it's probably relevant, but what is especially
1 important is that the witness says in paragraph 44 of his statement, his
2 2009 statement, he mentions there the name of an individual who knows
3 something about this site. But what gives rise to concern according to
4 me is that in his view, the history of the unit is truthfully and
5 correctly presented on this web site page, but on the page we can see a
6 whole series of -- a lot of information that has nothing to do with his
7 statement. But by accepting the content of this website, he in a way
8 supports the -- his own claims by saying that they are truthful and
9 correct, that the history of the unit is truthfully and correctly and
10 accurately presented in this site. So it is not from his own experience.
11 And perhaps the author of this website could be called in as a witness,
12 but not this witness.
13 JUDGE ORIE: You say you do not know who is behind this web site,
14 the statement of the witness tells us that he knows. So therefore to say
15 that you do not know -- of course we could examine him, and you could
16 cross-examine him on the basis of his knowledge, whether he -- this was
17 told to him by (redacted) but that's
18 not an admissibility or an authenticity issue. Apparently, that's what
19 the witness tells us, is that this was published on the internet and that
20 he knows the person who published it and what his position was in
21 relation to the Red Berets. All matters to be further explored, but not
22 a matter which is affecting the authenticity. You may say that it should
23 not be believed what this person says. That's a matter of weight and
24 matter of evaluation of the evidence. But since the witness apparently
25 has some knowledge about the person who is behind it, it seems that
1 authenticity is not a primary issue here, but he can be examined on it.
2 Any further comments in this respect?
3 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my main concern is
4 this, the entire history as perceived by someone else, he accepts
5 claiming that it is true and accurate and that, in fact, is completely
6 outside of his own knowledge and his own testimonies. We will see that
7 there's also a lot of talk on this website about Croatia and other
8 locations which are not part of his testimony. How can he claim that
9 something is true and accurate if it is not -- if it is not something
10 that is his knowledge, so that is all that I would have to say. I will
11 not waste any more of your time.
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
13 MR. JORDASH: May I just add a sentence or two in support and
14 really all I would submit is that the exact phrasing of the statement is
15 that the website is run by this particular gentleman. It appears as if
16 the question reasonably must have been asked does this witness know who
17 wrote that particular statement, and the question must have been answered
18 that he did not. All he knew was that the website was run by a
19 particular gentleman. So in my submission, it does go to authenticity,
20 because the question and answer is staring us in the face that this
21 witness doesn't know who is the author of the statement.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Not to say that when further exploring the
23 statement, the evidence of this witness that an authenticity might not
24 arise. It's well possible that if he says, well -- if he says I was
25 sitting next to him when he created the website, then the authenticity
1 issue seems not to be prominently there. However, there may be other
2 circumstances in which the matter may arise.
3 MR. JORDASH: I suppose my objection is really that the
4 Prosecution have failed to provide us with the material which would allow
5 us to make a judgement. If they'd asked the question, then it should be
6 in the statement. If they didn't ask the question, then we've in any
7 event been denied the information. I won't press the point, Your Honour.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE ORIE: Number 16 on the list, which is 65 ter 5015, is not
10 admitted into evidence. And, Madam Registrar, the number given to it
12 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P152, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ORIE: It is, therefore, now to be marked as not admitted.
14 65 ter 5168, 65 ter 4493, which had received I think P151 and P153 are
15 admitted into evidence, and the rest remains as it was.
16 Mr. Petrovic, you also wanted to object against the line of
17 questioning, let me just find again.
18 MR. HOFFMANN: In the meantime, if I may, Your Honour, there was
19 one mentioning of the name of the person allegedly operating this
20 website. I know that this witness asked us for the redacted version of
21 his statement, that the name be redacted, and I would ask that we also
22 redact the name from this proceedings --
23 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. It's always better to first ask to go into
24 private session before you make this kind of observations.
25 Madam Registrar, the name was mentioned several times, could you
1 make the appropriate redactions.
2 Mr. Petrovic, the line of questioning was challenged, let me find
3 it --
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
6 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to try and explain this.
7 My objection does not refer so much to the line of questioning of my
8 learned colleague. It is -- has to do with how the Defence team has been
9 informed and notified of what the substance of the examination of a
10 witness will be. All these statements that have been exhibited today
11 were taken in order to be used against these two accused, Mr. Stanisic
12 and Mr. Simatovic. The first statement from 2004 -- the first assumption
13 is that our colleagues, the Prosecution as conscientious and serious
14 people, have asked this witness, have you, witness, seen Mr. Simatovic,
15 that is only to be expected and I'm quite certain that my colleagues have
16 asked this question also in 2004. In 2004 there is no reply to this
17 question. The witness does mention Mr. Simatovic. He says that somebody
18 mentioned him, referred to his name --
19 JUDGE ORIE: Please, if you are referring to statements, always
20 give us the page and paragraph number so that we are able to follow
21 exactly what your references are.
22 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I will do that.
23 Your Honour, the 2004 statement, paragraph 18.
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please slow down for the benefit
25 of one and all.
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] In 2009 paragraph 12, after five
2 years in other words --
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, please proceed.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the 2009
5 statement, paragraph 12, five years later this story appears. It says, I
6 saw him personally once and that he came to the camp on Mount Ozren
7 That is in paragraph 12. He was interviewed in 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010, a
8 couple of days ago, in fact, and today the witness said that he had heard
9 about some other visits as well. That is page 44 and 45 today. And to a
10 quite leading question in fact. He knew of this one visit and then today
11 he said yes, I did hear something, meaning about some other visits as
13 As we are in a difficult situation as it is, but how can we
14 proceed under these circumstances when first from a state of there have
15 been no visits by Simatovic, now we have come to a state of multiple
16 visits by Simatovic. So we have not been notify of what the testimony
17 will be. I'm quite certain that colleague Hoffmann has asked him about
18 this and has put down, has jotted down what he asked him about today, and
19 these things are actually putting us in this state of quandary now.
20 Thank you, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, Mr. Petrovic -- Mr. Hoffmann, to try
22 to make matters simple, what actually Mr. Petrovic is saying is that the
23 statements are to some extent inconsistent, and that when you put
24 questions to the witness that the inconsistency even grows because there
25 comes more. Now, apart from whether this would not give a brilliant
1 opportunity to Mr. Petrovic for cross-examination, of course the first
2 question is whether you would disagree that there is some inconsistency
3 and that it may be a bit difficult if the statements would be
4 inconsistent in a certain respect, that you could have them admitted both
5 under Rule 92 ter that is attested as to the truth.
6 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honour, I try to be very brief. In the first
7 instance, in the 2004 statement, that is Exhibit P137 at paragraph 18, it
8 did read:
9 "Rajo Bozovic told us that the chief would come, and I suppose it
10 was Frenki Simatovic who was the commander of the special units of the
11 Serb NDP."
12 Now, obviously this is not particularly clear which is why when I
13 met the witness I did ask him about it. The initial meeting we had was
14 in 2008. A draft statement was taken because of the timing and that was
15 all explained in the various litigations on the issue of when and how to
16 add this witness to the witness list. I have taken a draft statement and
17 submitted that to the Defence teams in 2008 as a matter of notice,
18 although the witness at the time did not have a chance to review it.
19 In this draft 2008 statement, just as in the final 2009 statement
20 which is now Exhibit P138, he especially refers to paragraph 18 of the
21 old statement and then clarifies that he had seen him once. And, in
22 fact, to add that in the 2008 draft statement, it also included the
23 sentence that he did hear of other visits of Frenki Simatovic to
24 Mount Ozren
25 Due to an interpretation mistake, this one sentence was left out
1 when it was translated into B/C/S which was then used during the final
2 interview. In any event, the Defence since the early days had notice of
3 it and since 2008 had notice that he also talked about that he heard
4 about other visits. For me, it's clearly a matter of cross-examination I
5 really wonder how much more time you want to spend on possible ways of
6 cross-examination rather than to expect them to do their job during
8 JUDGE ORIE: Well, there's no need to assist me in conducting
9 this trial and giving suggestions as to what I should say to the other
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ORIE: The explanation given leads the Chamber to decide
13 that the objection against -- well, it's not clear against what exactly
14 the line of questioning or the way in which the Prosecution proceeds is
16 We will have a break, but before doing so --
17 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honour --
18 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Hoffmann?
19 MR. HOFFMANN: Just one procedural matter, if I may, quickly
21 JUDGE ORIE: Yes.
22 MR. HOFFMANN: It wasn't clear to me if, for the statements,
23 already the redacted versions were already admitted as well or if that is
24 to be decided later, but?
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, I -- again, I must say after quite a long
1 recess, I have to check again with the Registrar how we dealt with the
2 redacted statements, whether they were just to be filed or whether they
3 had to be admitted into evidence. Just it's not clear on my mind
5 MR. GROOME: Your Honour, if I may just add because Mr. Hoffmann
6 isn't aware of this, but the press people downstairs have made a
7 complaint to our press office saying they are finding it impossible to
8 follow what's happening today without a redacted copy of the statement,
9 so it's really conveying their request and their frustration at being at
10 a loss as to what's happening. So if the Chamber were able to decide
11 over the break about whether redacted versions could be tendered, I think
12 they would greatly appreciate that.
13 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, and my concern is that we have the same
14 evidence twice there, one apparently not for the purposes of this
15 proceedings but for the outside world, and I wonder whether there are any
16 other ways to resolve that problem. I'll further briefly discuss the
17 matter. There is -- there may be other ways of achieving the same goal.
18 I also would like to urge the parties to be -- to show some
19 self-restraint in objections. For example, to say that the names are
20 different, then we look at it and they turn out not to be different, I
21 think that this should have been verified by that counsel before raising
22 the matter. The argument in relation to procedural matters, and I give
23 another example, having long arguments on a document and then to say
24 well, we would not oppose against admission as a bar table document, of
25 course could have been shortened quite a bit by saying, although we find
1 it inappropriate that this is introduced through this witness, we
2 nevertheless do not object against admission, although a bar table
3 submission would have to be preferred. That's three lines instead of two
5 The Chamber is primarily focusing on hearing evidence in this
6 case and seeks a fair balance between procedural matters necessarily and
7 appropriately be raised and spending its time on hearing the evidence.
8 We will have a break and we'll resume at 5 minutes to 6.00.
9 --- Recess taken at 5.27 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, are you ready to continue?
13 MR. HOFFMANN: Yes, Your Honour.
14 Q. Witness, if I may refer you to your 2009 statement which is
15 Exhibit P138. In paragraph 31 you stated that in May 1997 you have been
16 present at a ceremony in Kula in Serbia
17 A. Yes, I do recall that.
18 Q. Can you explain the Chamber what the Kula camp was?
19 A. It -- it wasn't a camp, it was sort of a command of the special
20 operations unit.
21 Q. Can you give us the official title of the unit at the time in
22 May 1997?
23 A. The special operations unit, or the unit for special operations.
24 Q. And the correct abbreviation for that would be JSO; is that
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And to what organ or official body, if any, did this unit belong
4 A. It belonged to the state security department, the state security
5 as we referred to it. The state security service, as we referred to it.
6 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, I will now play a couple of clips
7 from a video that has previously been admitted as Prosecution
8 Exhibit P61. I want to note just for the clarity that we can see on the
9 clips that we will play a time code that is actually on the screen which
10 at times differs about 1 second from the time code that is seen on the
11 Sanctioned file. Whenever I do refer to the time codes in the next
12 questions, I do refer to the time code as it is shown on the video
13 itself, in white font.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Has the transcript been provided to the booth?
15 MR. HOFFMANN: We did provide the transcripts to the booth. I
16 see them nodding. We have marked the individual clips by numbers, and we
17 will start the first clip at 1 minute 14 and stop again at 1.20.
18 [Video-clip played]
19 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "How are you?
20 "Good, am I one of them?
21 "Certainly not one of the veterans, excuse me, veterans."
22 MR. HOFFMANN:
23 Q. Witness, do you recognise either of the two men that we can see
24 in this frame at 1 minute 20?
25 A. I do, I recognise the first person.
1 Q. Can you tell the Court who that is?
2 A. The first person is Radojica Bozovic.
3 Q. Again, just for the record, you refer to the right person on this
5 A. The first person on the right-hand side.
6 Q. Is that the same Rajo Bozovic whom you mention in your statement
7 as being the leader of the Red Beret unit you served in Doboj?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. We will continue until 1 minute 25 seconds.
10 [Video-clip played]
11 MR. HOFFMANN:
12 Q. Witness, again there are two men in this shot, one with glasses,
13 do you recognise either of these men in the frame at 1 minute 25?
14 A. Dragan Opacic.
15 Q. Which one of the two is he?
16 A. The one on the right-hand side.
17 Q. We will then play a second clip which starts at 5 minutes 50 of
18 the original tape and pause again at 6 minutes 36.
19 [Video-clip played]
20 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Mr. President: Special operations
21 unit of the state security service of the Republic of Serbia
22 inspection. Unit commander Colonel Milorad Lukovic reporting.
23 "Hello Lukovic."
24 MR. HOFFMANN:
25 Q. Witness, you see three persons in this shot at 6 minutes 36. Do
1 you recognise the three men on this screen shot?
2 A. I do not.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Oh, sorry. Interpreter's correction: "Yes, I
5 MR. HOFFMANN:
6 Q. Can you tell the names of the three persons starting from the
7 left side?
8 A. The first person on the left is Jovica Stanisic. Next to him is
9 Slobodan Milosevic, and behind them you can see Milorad Ulemek.
10 MR. HOFFMANN: We then play a third clip, we continue at 12
11 minutes of the original tape and pause again at 12 minutes 20 seconds.
12 [Video-clip played]
13 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Go ahead.
14 "Mr. President, allow me to -- how it -- where it originated and
15 what it means now ... at ease."
16 MR. HOFFMANN:
17 Q. Witness, just for the record, you see one person on this screen
18 at 12 minutes 20 seconds, who is that?
19 A. Franko Simatovic.
20 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, we will play now a longer clip which
21 runs until 19 minutes 29. It shows the accused, Franko Simatovic, giving
22 a speech in Kula. Once this has been played, I will address certain
23 questions with this witness. This is still part of what is marked for
24 the booth as clip 3.
25 [Video-clip played]
1 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Mr. President, we thank you for
2 accepting the invitation to attend the ceremony marking the anniversary
3 of the formation of the special operations unit of the state security
4 service. It was constituted on the 4th of May, 1991, at the time of the
5 break-up of the former Yugoslavia
6 worked to protect national security in circumstances where the existence
7 of the Serbian people was directly jeopardised throughout its entire
8 ethnic area. Its combat operations were anti-terrorist, directed at
9 preventing war crimes, mass retaliation, and genocide.
10 "From the first moment of its existence and establishment, the
11 unit has passed through a heroic epic, and its path has been one of the
12 most difficult ones in the history of the struggle. Due to the
13 international circumstances familiar to us all, we were forced to operate
14 in a complete secrecy. And despite wartime conditions: Fighting with
15 Croatian and Muslim troops, the presence of numerous United Nations
16 international forces - later IFOR and SFOR - and numerous instruments of
17 foreign intelligence services in the field where the unit is not. The
18 contribution of the special operations unit is enormous. Forty-seven
19 soldiers were killed and 250 wounded in combat operations at 50 different
21 "We are proud of the unit's level of professional training, which
22 meets the highest international standards, and the unit has never
23 experienced defeat. One of its most recent successes was its engagement
24 in the freeing of 400 UNPROFOR hostages in Republika Srpska, which met
25 with a very positive response in the international community and made our
1 country's position stronger. One of the units's most successful actions
2 in our territory was the capturing of the national guard corps terrorist
3 group caught in the Apatin area in 1993.
4 "Mr. President, allow us to inform you briefly about the unit's
5 history, its combat record, present situation, and function. When it was
6 formed, its core was made up of members of our service, Republic of
7 Serbian Krajina police, and volunteers from Serbia. The second war
8 service intelligence administration, which was also set up at the time,
9 included a special team for offensive and logistical support of the
10 special operations unit.
11 "From the 12 October 1991
12 forces in the zones of Benkovac, Stari Gospic, Plitvice, Glina,
13 Kostajnica, and others, the unit provided important support in the
14 liberation of all areas of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. Around 5.000
15 soldiers were engaged in these battles and their actions were
16 co-ordinated by the unit command and an intelligence team from the second
18 "In May 1991, an air helicopter squadron was formed which
19 transported tonnes of special shipments, equipment, troops, and machinery
20 from the improvised airfields of Medeno Polje, Petrovac, Velika Popina,
21 SRB, and Udbina, and carried out numerous complex tasks while war
22 operations were ongoing.
23 "In September 1991, a part of the unit was transferred to Serbia
24 where it's reconstruction was conducted and high quality professional
25 training organised. These two units were involved in operations in
1 Eastern Slavonia
2 were for Special Police units of Republika Srpska and the Republic of
3 Serbian Krajina were also formed in that period. In the Republic of
4 Serbian Krajina in Golubic, Dinara, Obrovac, Gracac, Plitvice, Sumarice,
5 Petrova Gora, Licki Osik, Benkovac, Lezimir, Ilok, and Vukovar and in RSK
6 in Banja Luka, Doboj, Samac, Brcko, Bijeljina, Trebinje, Visegrad, Ozren,
7 and Mrkonjic Grad.
8 "Units of Serbian were involved in six large joint operations in
9 Eastern Slavonia
10 Maglaj operations. In Western Bosnia, the unit was the backbone of
11 Fikret Abdic's army with around 15.000 soldiers who freed most of Cazin
13 "Also in 1992, they began building and securing a network of
14 small air fields in Bosnia-Herzegovina and also forming a combat
15 squadron. Around a thousand combat, reconnaissance, transport, and
16 humanitarian flights were made from the airfields in Bratunac, Skelani,
17 Sokolac, Rogatica and others. In mid-spring of last year, it retreated
18 from these parts with complete equipment and machinery, helicopters, and
19 aircraft. Throughout that period, its operation remained undetected,
20 despite NATO's sophisticated equipment and intensive investigation by a
21 number of foreign intelligence services. The unit's humanitarian
22 activities throughout the entire period are also substantial.
23 "One of them was the promotion of Captain Dragan's Fund, which
24 employs 150 wounded persons and cares for over 2.500 children of soldiers
25 killed, and also mediates in the employment of around 6.000 socially
1 deprived persons, for the most part. After the end of war, in the area
2 of the former Yugoslavia
3 its numerical strength was, of course, adapted to present conditions and
4 obligations. With a new organisation, which began effective in the
5 service as of May of last 36 years, the unit was reduced to 593 members
6 which operates at 75 per cent of strength. The current reserve force is
7 of company strength, made up of former soldiers who are trained to
8 maintain a constantly high level of combat readiness. Part of the
9 special operations unit organisation are units to battalions, companies,
10 and platoons, and also a helicopter squadron. In addition, tactical
11 services providing logistical, medical, intelligence, and
12 counter-intelligence support are also part of the unit.
13 "The centre in which we are now bears the name of
14 Radoslav Kostic, a distinguished member of this unit who was killed three
15 years ago in Western -- the service took over this building in February
16 1995 in a very damaged condition, and prior to that, from 1999, it had
17 served as a refugee reception centre.
18 "You will have the opportunity to see that we have managed to
19 build a modern centre with training grounds, a firing range, a heliport,
20 dispensary, hangars, and other facilities. Due to functional needs, we
21 have planned the construction of a number of tactical facilities, and
22 some of them have already been put into operation.
23 "Mr. President, the special operations unit is in the stage of
24 being trained for operations against terrorism and other forms of
25 jeopardising the country's security. It represents an important
1 contribution to the elimination of all potential threats to the national
2 and state security of Serbia
3 of acting quickly and efficiently in any part of the country or abroad.
4 Thank you.
5 "Would you like to have a look?"
6 MR. HOFFMANN:
7 Q. Witness, Frenki Simatovic has given the date of the founding of
8 the unit as 4 May 1991
9 given by the accused Frenki Simatovic?
10 A. According to what I know, I believe that at that time the camps
11 began to be established and the training started, but what other members
12 told me in casual conversation was that it had been established much
13 earlier, perhaps that was correct.
14 Q. In his speech, and that would be at page 9 of the English
15 transcript, we can find the following quote from the accused Frenki
17 "And since it emerged has constantly worked to protect national
18 security in circumstances where the existence of the Serbian people was
19 directly jeopardised throughout its entire ethnic area."
20 Witness, what does that term mean to you?
21 A. To me, it means that in a city or in a region where there are the
22 Serbian people or where there is a Serbian majority.
23 Q. Do you understand the accused referring to areas within the
24 Republic of Serbia
25 A. No, no, actually he was referring to places outside the Republic
1 of Serbia
2 Q. Can you be more precise in what you understand these areas would
3 be that he referred to?
4 A. For instance, the Knin Krajina, Banja Luka, to be more specific
5 Doboj where there is a Serbian majority, in municipalities where there
6 was a Serbian majority.
7 Q. The accused Simatovic has listed a number of locations, and that
8 is to be found on page 10 of the English transcript, like Benkovac, Stari
9 Gospic, Plitvice, Glina, Kostajnica, where he claims that the unit had
10 battles with Croatian forces from 12th October 1991 onwards. Could you
11 tell the Court where these areas are?
12 A. These locations are in the area of the Republic of Serbian
14 Q. Did you ever hear from any of your colleagues in the Red Berets
15 or the JSO about actions they had participated in this region?
16 MR. JORDASH: Sorry to, maybe I've missed the disclosure, but I
17 don't know if this has been disclosed, this aspect of the witness's
18 evidence? I didn't appreciate he was going to go into issues relating to
19 these various areas. Maybe I've missed something in the statement.
20 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, could you -- apparently Mr. Jordash
21 misses the link between what he expected to be the testimony on the basis
22 of these statements. Could you help him out.
23 MR. HOFFMANN: Certainly, Your Honour. For instance in the 2009
24 statement at paragraph 17 it does refer to the witness talking to Bozovic
25 and the other instructors, Vuk and Riki, about their experience and their
1 first training in Golubic in 1991.
2 JUDGE ORIE: That's -- Mr. Jordash, Golubic is, from what I know,
3 is in the Serbian Krajina.
4 MR. JORDASH: That's right, Your Honour, and it's the question
5 was asked about actions in particular locations. What my learned friend
6 has just referred to is evidence relating to training at Golubic. What
7 my learned friend is asking about, it would appear, is military
8 operations of this so-called special unit.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann.
10 MR. HOFFMANN: It is clearly the Prosecution's understanding that
11 not every piece of the expected testimony has it to be disclosed line by
12 line. This clearly falls into the general evidence that has been
13 disclosed previously. We have this part of Frenki Simatovic speech
14 already in evidence, and I'm just questioning this witness about his
15 knowledge about it without going in any further detail.
16 JUDGE ORIE: We'll see how it further develops and see whether it
17 goes into such detail as it would have been unfair for the Stanisic
18 Defence not to be aware of the type of questions you are putting to the
19 witness. So you may proceed, but this is not a green light forever.
20 MR. HOFFMANN:
21 Q. Witness, may I just repeat my question. Did you ever hear from
22 your colleagues in the Red Berets, and/or the JSO, about actions they had
23 participated in this region that we just heard about from
24 Frenki Simatovic and the RSK?
25 A. Yes, there was talk about it, but I have no information about
1 specific actions.
2 Q. And is what Mr. Simatovic in his speech says about the --
3 generally about the actions in the Croatian Krajina consistent --
4 MR. JORDASH: Sorry to object.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Shall we first listen to what the question is before
6 we object. Please do not answer the question yet, Witness.
7 Yes, continue.
8 MR. HOFFMANN:
9 Q. Witness, I was just about to ask you whether what you heard from
10 your colleagues if that is consistent with what Mr. Frenki Simatovic says
11 in his speech about the actions in the Croatian Krajina?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Jordash.
13 MR. JORDASH: The objection stands, Your Honour. At the heart of
14 the Prosecution case is this alleged unit and its crimes committed in
15 these locations, and my learned friend is seeking to elicit the core of
16 the case which he clearly has discussed with the witness previous and has
17 failed to disclose it to the Defence but is seeking to just take
18 advantage by eliciting it in open court.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann.
20 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, at this point in time --
21 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Petrovic.
23 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just to supplement
24 very briefly. A few rows above, the witness said there was talk about it
25 but I have no information about specific actions. I believe that puts an
1 end to that particular line of questioning. That that is all that
2 Mr. Hoffmann can elicit from this witness on that score. Anything else
3 would be leading him on.
4 JUDGE ORIE: Well, not necessarily, but Mr. Hoffmann, it's clear
5 that the witness says the only thing I heard a bit -- we have seen on the
6 video and heard on the video what Mr. Simatovic was claiming. In what
7 direction are you going? If you say, well, this witness would confirm
8 that others were talking about that, well, then, it gives some support,
9 but I would say the real weight of what was said is found in the video
10 rather than by a witness who says that he heard other peoples talking
11 about it.
12 So, therefore, I'm wondering what the purpose is to seek rather
13 general and weak support for something which seems to be at least at
14 first sight to be a very focussed explanation of what the unit had done.
15 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, the content of this video and the
16 speech of one of the accused in this case seems to be a matter of
17 contention, especially interpretation of that speech. That is why I am
18 exactly going down the road that you have just indicated. We have a
19 witness who was a member of the unit, who talked to colleagues of the
20 unit, and we have general comments of the accused, and he can confirm
21 those --
22 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, but that's --
23 MR. HOFFMANN: That's it.
24 JUDGE ORIE: Then we've heard from the witness now that he heard
25 others talk about it without any further specifics. That's where we are.
1 What else is there? I mean, put a question and there was an objection to
2 leading in this respect, put your next question to the witness and see
3 what it brings; although, I wouldn't say that it's the expectations
4 expressed by Mr. Petrovic are without any merit. So please proceed, but
5 let's be very precise in our questioning.
6 MR. HOFFMANN:
7 Q. Witness, if I just repeat my question. You have just said that
8 you talked to some of your colleagues in the units about the events in
10 about the actions in the Croatian Krajina. Does what you heard from
11 other unit members match to what you heard from Frenki Simatovic?
12 JUDGE ORIE: Then we have really to know whether it matches or
13 not. If I say the summer of 1998 was a brilliant summer, and if in
14 another statement it says the weather was good at the beach, all kind of
15 details, and then to say to match it, doesn't give us any further
16 information. If you are seeking matching points, you should ask the
17 witness exactly at what points what he heard from his colleagues was
18 matching with what he saw on this video.
19 Could you please answer that question. You said you didn't
20 receive any further details. I think you said -- now, what you heard
21 here, is there anything in this which was told to you by your colleagues
22 as well, and if so, what details there were?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, one can conclude from this
24 speech that it does actually correspond to that.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. You are not invited to draw conclusions from
1 the speech. What did they tell you? You earlier said that without
2 giving any details this is what they -- some of it was told to you. Now,
3 what did they tell you exactly?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, for instance, they told me
5 where the first camp had been established, how the training went on, how
6 they grew, and new camps were being established, how the Republic of the
7 Serbian Krajina was being defended and so on.
8 That they were defending the interests of the Serbian people in
10 JUDGE ORIE: Anything else?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Also the place names. They
12 mentioned the places where these camps were, but a lot of time has passed
13 in the meantime and I can't recall them all. It's been 17 years or so.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, please proceed.
15 MR. HOFFMANN:
16 Q. Witness, you just mentioned the camps that Frenki Simatovic talks
17 about. Are you personally familiar with any of the mentioned training
19 A. Well, they said that the system was the same as at the Ozren
20 camp, that they were established in the same manner and that the training
21 that was conducted there was the same.
22 Q. Do you understand the reference to Mount Ozren
23 place that you were trained at?
24 A. Yes.
25 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, is my recollection right that there
1 was no reference to Mount Ozren
2 MR. HOFFMANN: That is correct, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, well, then you are adding something. I mean,
4 to say is the reference to Mount Ozren
5 considered to be Mount Ozren
6 of course you answer the question yourself and of course the witness is
7 supposed to give evidence and not you, and I and invite you to be very
8 precise on these matters.
9 One additional question, Witness JF-005, you said: "Well, they
10 said that the system was the same as at the Ozren camp." Who is "they"?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The people who were our
13 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you. Please proceed.
14 MR. HOFFMANN:
15 Q. Frenki Simatovic also mentioned a camp location at Golubic in the
16 Republic of Serbian
17 mentioned in your 2009 statement at paragraph 4 where Bozovic, Vuk, and
18 Riki had been trained in 1991?
19 A. Correction, they were trained. That's -- that is the place.
20 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of any other of the camp
21 location that were mentioned besides from the one in Doboj and Ozren?
22 A. There was a camp in Banja Luka, in Samac, in Brcko, there was a
23 small camp in Teslic. Yes, there were some other camps.
24 Q. Have you seen those camps personally or did you hear about them?
25 A. Well, I did see the Banja Luka camp myself, but as for the
1 others, I had heard about them, but there is no reason for me to suspect
2 or not to believe that they existed.
3 Q. Further on, Mr. Simatovic has referred to, and I quote, "new
4 organisation" of the unit. Are you familiar with this term or this new
6 A. Well, probably he just referred to the re-organisation within the
7 unit itself.
8 MR. KNOOPS: Your Honour, sorry to interrupt, Mr. Stanisic
9 requests leave to use the mens' room but he has no objection if we
11 JUDGE ORIE: Then leave is granted, and if he has no objection,
12 we'll also continue.
13 Mr. Hoffmann, you may continue.
14 MR. HOFFMANN:
15 Q. Frenki Simatovic has mentioned a special operation unit
16 intelligence and counter-intelligence support. Do you personally know
17 anything about the way in which the unit's intelligence and
18 counter-intelligence support functioned?
19 A. I personally was not involved in that and I do not know how it
20 functioned. I know what I was told by others, but as for the inner
21 workings of the intelligence or counter-intelligence service, I really
22 don't know about that anything, and I wasn't there. I wasn't present
24 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter is not sure of the last words
25 that the witness said.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Could you please repeat your last words because the
2 interpreters were not sure that they caught them. You said "I really
3 don't know about that anything" and then what were your words following
4 that phrase?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That was not my job description. I
6 wasn't involved in the workings of that so I didn't have any personal
7 knowledge of that.
8 MR. HOFFMANN:
9 Q. Witness, in your answer you just said that you know what I was
10 told by others, can you tell the Court what you heard about the
11 intelligence or counter-intelligence support from other members of the
13 A. That they were deployed in other agencies as well.
14 Q. Can you give an example if you heard of any such example?
15 MR. JORDASH: I'm really sorry to leap up. My learned friend
16 appears to be reading from a document, none of this has been disclosed.
17 We had no idea the witness was going to discuss the counter-intelligence
18 support unit of this special unit. I'm not sure what notes my learned
19 friend has, but they clearly have arisen from an interview with the
21 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann.
22 MR. HOFFMANN: I will skip this question and move ahead.
23 JUDGE ORIE: Then please move on.
24 MR. HOFFMANN:
25 Q. Witness, why do you think it was Frenki Simatovic in particular
1 who made this speech to President Milosevic and the others at this award
3 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Petrovic.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my learned colleague
5 is now asking the witness to speculate as to why something was done by my
6 client. He is asking this witness to speculate. Thank you.
7 JUDGE ORIE: Well, asking the witness to speculate, but I would
8 agree that we need a factual foundation for any opinion because you are
9 seeking an opinion.
10 Is there anything known to you which would allow you to tell us
11 why it was Mr. Simatovic in particular who made that speech? I'm not
12 asking you to speculate on these matters, but whether there is anything
13 to your knowledge what explains why it was Mr. Simatovic?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, because he was
15 the founder of the unit, the first person who founded this unit in 1991
16 when it was established.
17 JUDGE ORIE: And what's the basis for that knowledge?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the basis of this knowledge
19 is that all the previous instructors who were there, who were there in
20 1995 and 1996, they said that he was the founder of the unit, as the
21 concept itself.
22 JUDGE ORIE: So you were told this and that you can't -- you have
23 no other knowledge of fact why it was Mr. Simatovic which had to give
24 that speech at that time?
25 Mr. Hoffmann, I'm wondering what the question could tell us, but
1 we want knowledge of facts rather than understanding of what others said
2 or what would have been logical.
3 You may put the next question to the witness.
4 Mr. Petrovic.
5 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, I just
6 need to intervene in the transcript. Line 7 -- not everything that the
7 witness said was translated. There was something else that the witness
8 said in the Serbian language but that was not interpreted and that is not
9 in the transcript.
10 JUDGE ORIE: Line 7 of page 77?
11 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, page 77, between
12 lines 4 to 7, so in that reply of the witness there was some additional
13 information that was not interpreted.
14 JUDGE ORIE: Witness, I'll read to you what is found in those
15 lines and could you please then tell us what you said in addition to what
16 I read.
17 "Well, the basis of this knowledge is that all the previous
18 instructors who were there, who were there in 1995 and 1996, they said
19 that he was the founder of the unit," and then it says, "as the concept
20 itself." Could you tell us what you told us in addition to what I just
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I said that he was not
23 personally there in the territory but that he was the founder of the
25 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, Mr. Petrovic, this meets your --
1 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, please proceed.
3 MR. HOFFMANN: We will continue to play clip 3. So it's the same
4 clip still, and we go until 19 minutes 59.
5 JUDGE ORIE: Mr. Hoffmann, one of the things I'm wondering. You
6 are supposed to -- not to lead this witness and there have been
7 objections about it. First, to show what someone else told us and then
8 to say is this what you know as well. Wouldn't it be appropriate to do
9 it the other way around, to ask the witness anything you know already is
10 on the video, and, of course, the witness for the sequences to follow is
11 not aware. Then ask him what he knows about it and then look at it
12 whether there's any need to play it again because then we know what the
13 witness can tell us rather than that the witness gives his observations
14 on whether it's consistent with what others told him because the answers
15 are there already.
16 So I would invite you to do it the other way around. Put
17 questions in relation to what you know to be there and then to see what
18 that brings us.
19 MR. HOFFMANN: Okay. The following parts of the clips are just
20 basically footage, and I'm just going to ask the witness about what is
21 shown on the footage. I think insofar that should cause no concern.
22 JUDGE ORIE: Well, if it's not about -- if it is about who is
23 there or could you locate that, if it's no further speeches, I have no
24 problems, but if it would be further speeches to be confirmed as to the
25 content by the witness, then I would oppose. Please proceed.
1 MR. HOFFMANN: We'll then play -- continue to play clip 3 and
2 we'll play it until 19 minutes 59.
3 [Video-clip played]
4 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "What about these? They don't have.
5 MR. HOFFMANN:
6 Q. Witness, during the time that you were at Kula did you have
7 occasion to be in the room shown on this video?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And who are the people whose pictures are appearing on the wall
11 A. Members of the unit who were killed.
12 Q. And can you tell us where the flags that can be seen at the
13 bottom of the screen shot were coming from?
14 A. Those were the flags that had been captured during combat.
15 MR. HOFFMANN: We will continue the same clip until 20 minutes
17 [Video-clip played]
18 MR. HOFFMANN:
19 Q. Witness, can you tell the Court what is on this plaque shown on
20 this screen shot at 20 minutes 28?
21 A. I believe that this is the unit's anthem. Yes, it is, the anthem
22 of the special operations unit.
23 Q. Did you ever personally receive such a plaque?
24 A. Yes, I do have it somewhere.
25 MR. HOFFMANN: We continue with this clip until 20 minutes 46.
1 [Video-clip played]
2 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "These are the places where we ..."
3 MR. HOFFMANN:
4 Q. Witness, at this screen shot at 20 minutes 46, can you tell us
5 what the item on the wall is?
6 A. It's a map depicting the places where the training camps were.
7 MR. HOFFMANN: We then play clip 4 which starts at 22 minutes 12
8 seconds of the original tape and we pause again at 22 minutes 38.
9 [Video-clip played]
10 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Mr. President, dear guests, let us
11 pay tribute to Deputy Minister Radovan Stojicic, Badza, by observing a
12 minute of silence. Glory to him. Glory."
13 MR. HOFFMANN:
14 Q. Witness, we've just heard Jovica Stanisic asking for a minute of
15 silence to honour Radovan Stojicic aka Badza. Do you know who that
16 person was?
17 A. Yes, I know he was a police general.
18 MR. HOFFMANN: We will then continue with clip 5, which starts at
19 40 minutes 44 seconds of the original tape and stop at 40 minutes 55.
20 [Video-clip played]
21 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "They are the best. They have
22 reason to ... Good-bye."
23 MR. HOFFMANN:
24 Q. Witness, just for the record, we look now at the time code 40
25 minutes 56. Who are the two men who just shook hands?
1 A. Franko Simatovic and Slobodan Milosevic.
2 MR. HOFFMANN: And we continue until 41 minute 10 seconds,
4 [Video-clip played]
5 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "Thank you, Radojica, all the best.
6 Great heros."
7 MR. HOFFMANN:
8 Q. Witness, can you tell us who is now shaking hands with Milosevic
9 if you can tell at 41 minutes, 10 seconds?
10 A. I see there Radojica Bozovic and Slobodan Milosevic.
11 Q. And we are still talking about the same and one Rajo Bozovic as
13 A. Yes, it is the same Rajo Bozovic who was at the Ozren camp.
14 MR. HOFFMANN: Okay. We have one last short clip and that is
15 clip 6. It starts at 43 minutes, 15 seconds, and we stop again at 43
16 minutes, 25.
17 [Video-clip played]
18 MR. HOFFMANN:
19 Q. Witness, can you tell the Court what Jovica Stanisic is doing in
20 this clip?
21 A. He is greeting -- exchanging greetings with Captain Dragan.
22 MR. HOFFMANN: And we continue until 43:51.
23 [Video-clip played]
24 THE INTERPRETER: [Voiceover] "I'm proud to present you with ..."
25 MR. HOFFMANN:
1 Q. Witness, do you recognise the person that Captain Dragan goes to
2 after receiving the gift from Jovica Stanisic shown at 43 minutes, 51
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. Just for the record, can you tell the Court who he is?
6 A. Franko Simatovic.
7 MR. HOFFMANN: Your Honours, in light of the time, I would rather
8 pause here before I move into a new area?
9 JUDGE ORIE: Yes, if there's no area which you could cover within
10 the next 6 minutes, then we'll have an early adjournment.
11 Could you give us an indication as to how much time you'd still
12 need. The Chamber is aware that in the beginning of today some
13 additional time was take by matters of a procedural nature.
14 MR. HOFFMANN: There are maybe four or five documents that I want
15 to show to the witness, and then about two clips of total 2 minutes with
16 some additional questions on those clips. Depending on how far we go
17 ahead with those documents, we'll have some basic questions, I think that
18 could be done maybe in a half an hour tomorrow afternoon.
19 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. So you'd certainly finish within the first
20 session, is that --
21 MR. HOFFMANN: That would certainly be my aim. And if I just
22 maybe -- I don't know where the Defence stands at the moment, but it may
23 be worth that if we meet outside the courtroom just to look at the four
24 documents that I have at hand if we can expedite the discussion tomorrow
25 in court.
1 JUDGE ORIE: Yes. Make your aim a reality, Mr. Hoffmann, I would
2 say then. That's for at least the Chamber is expect you to do.
3 I think the parties would need some guidance as to the start of
4 the cross-examination. The Defence teams are invited that the request
5 for postponing cross-examination as a whole is not granted. Therefore,
6 the Defence teams are expected to cross-examine the witness and the
7 Chamber will then see whether there will be any further request for more
8 time for further preparations or for a recall of the witness once you
9 have exhausted all the possibilities that are there, and the Chamber
10 certainly in considering such a request will expect the party to show
11 good cause why the matter which -- the matter on which the witness cannot
12 be cross-examined on yet, why it was impossible to prepare for that
14 This may serve as guidance for the parties. I do not know
15 whether any arrangement has been made as to who will start. You may have
16 considered who is the first one not to start, but because that seems to
17 be the common position of the Defence teams, but now you'll have to
18 consider who will start the cross-examination. And the Chamber would
19 then hear from you.
20 Witness JF-005, we'll adjourn for the day and I'd like to
21 instruct you that you should not speak with anyone or communicate in any
22 other way with anyone about your testimony, whether that is testimony
23 you've given today or testimony still to be given in the days to come.
24 We will adjourn and we resume tomorrow, Thursday, the 21st of
25 January, quarter past 2.00 in this same Courtroom II.
1 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.00 p.m.
2 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 21st day of
3 January, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.